Thanks, Jack. This illustrates a point perfectly.

PS - Pave paradise and put up a parking lot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMEPk6fvpg

I'd like to see a simulation of the actual current proposal.

NO!
Couldn't stand to look at that computer simulation and what it represents, no respect whatsoever and "hang your head down in shame" for those who think it is OK.

Something has to pay for the upkeep of the façade.

Artificial trees to keep Portlandia "green".
I know...put a bird on it!

The offset for this carbon footprint shall be bike sharing and no food scraps in our land fills. That ought to cover it.

I'm sure the Oregonian will cover this well and print both pics.

That "computer simulation" appears to be a scan of a magazine centerfold picture, circa 1990 (or 1996, kinda hard to tell). Is this image from the most up-to-date plan?

That does seem to work so well for the agenda. Promote green and do who knows what behind the scene!

There is no adequate mitigation for this kind of destruction.

...or do they try to convince themselves they are "do gooders" with the bike stuff and food scraps?

Bike stuff and food scraps are all part of the advertising hype to promote the sales of condos in the green village.

Mr. Grumpy,
Will we have a huge exodus when those who fell for the promo see the light?

I think the current proposal would be smaller than that, and then the 500 acres of open space will be permenantly protected. Seems like a good solution to me.

People who think that they can keep the world from changing are in for a long life of disappointments. It's a chronic condition here in Oregon.

I don't have a problem putting the "Port" back in Portland. We are located along one of the world's great waterways, let's use it.

As an aside for those who would like to preserve every open space in the metro area as natural area, I would suggest that you explore the roughly 70 miles of waterfront between Portland and Astoria. the vast majority of it is undeveloped. From an economic perspective, it is ridiculous to spend millions of dollars trying to get salmon to spawn in downtown Portland. If you spend that same amount of money restoring the watershed and tributaries in an area such as the Tillamook Forest, the net gain to the salmon population along with many other species is exponentially higher. This includes bald eagles which are not an endangered species (They are, however, a protected species for obvious reasons).

There's already been a quiet exodus going on for the past 10 to 15 years. Get out and about and you'll meet very few people who've lived here half that long, which is surprising for a community over 160 years old and that until recently has changed little since World War II. But it's mutating now and fast. Excavators and tower cranes are coming soon to a neighborhood near you. But, I digress from the above topic...

Snards, as someone pointed on in the earlier thread on this subject, paving Hayden Isl won't fix the real problem which is lack of railroad capacity to deliver things to the port. But facts are inconvenient to grow at all cost folks.

Don't worry. Be happy. We can pave this. Just think of the jobs. Someone can preserve something somewhere else. It will all be fine.

Don't worry. Be happy. Industry is all good. We can just send the toxic stuff somewhere else. It will all be fine.

Don't worry. Be happy. We can't pay teachers that kind of money. If the schools are crappy, you can send your kids somewhere else. It will all be fine.

Don't worry. Be happy. If we sell all the Bull Run water to multi-nationals, think of the jobs we'll create. We can always drink water from somewhere else. It will all be fine.

The song of 21st Century Portland.

People who think that they can keep the world from changing are in for a long life of disappointments.

Yeah, give in to injustice. Slavery's not so bad.

Well, you know after the religious right nut balls take over, they can use the whole predestination argument to cover everything. Global warming was predestined. Economic failures were predestined. The rich getting richer was predestined - they are the elect and the rest of you all are preterite.

I don't think that putting in a new port terminal on Hayden Island qualifies as "injustice."

We have a system to preserve natural areas. One of the most intensive such systems in the nation. Most of that preservation happens outside the UGB. That's the system.

Inside the UGB, you have development. You know, a city.

Metro has been buying up open space around the area, Portland just bought some land to preserve in SW. Half of Sauvie Island is a nature preserve right on the river. So we have lots of parks. We'll have more. But development also happens sometimes.

Frankly, I'd suggest that we adequately maintain and police Forest Park before we go adding another single acre of park space.

Snards,

Robert Kennedy Jr. years ago said as I recall that the most important issue for environmentalists is making our cities livable and went on to say that if you can't make the cities livable, people are going to move out. They are going to move into the watershed and rural areas and ruin them.

So, another reason to see to it that inside the UGB where we mostly live should be kept livable as well, the UGB should not be used as an excuse to sacrifice livability.

I began with a neutral position regarding the UGB, but I believe that greed entered
and the plan has gone too far and needs to be changed.

Are we really saving outside the UGB, have you taken a drive out on Sunset Hwy 26 to the coast? Why did we not purchase and save those trees for the public instead we have cut and run devastation. Generally leaves our out of state visitors perplexed as to why this would be so obvious in this green Oregon.

Is it OK that we are stacked in here with more and more density and congestion where outside the UGB we have mansions and estates? Thought that was supposed to be saved farmland?

If the UGB means open season on everything inside of it, then we need to repeal it and replace it with something more restrictive which will preserve a significant portion of natural areas within. Let's have a couple of initiative petitions, shall we?

Ay ay ay. I think I just broke my eyes rolling them into the back of my head. Now we can't build inside or outside the UGB? That seems realistic.

You guys win. I'm not going to comment on this topic any more.

But a city is either growing or it's dying. There is no place on earth that stays exactly the same forever.

Talk about misinterpretation, Snards. No one said no building at all. But paving over wild life habitat for a facility that probably is only needed to line some developer's pockets (and possibly kick backs to Port of Portland officials - ever notice the nice digs their leaders retire to?)

LucsAdvo, this is not to be argumentative, but if some solar company, or if Vesta needed 300 acres to unload off ships, store, distribute their wind machines with rail access, where would you place it in the UGB? Where are the large parcels of developable industrial land with sea, rail, freeway access? Kalama? Longview? Tacoma?

Snards,
Whatever you think, I see it as good to open up the conversation about the UGB plan.

I attended a Patricia McCaig/metro meeting at a pub years ago, did then bring up other options, but the conversation was "shut down." I was a bit reserved then, but not now and I think the plan has gone too far.

People understand change, and I look forward to positive change. I believe we have been shortchanged instead and you know how the scene is run here, it is not for the people's benefit.

We are propagandized to accept plans and in the end it has turned out to be for those who profit and in my opinion at the expense of the rest of us, financially and in quality of life issues.

If the UGB plan is such a great working plan, why then is there a lack of jobs here? Has it become too expensive for businesses to stay and/or locate here?

Moderation and sane policies are needed here. Extreme density is a vertical negative and extreme sprawl is a horizontal negative. Has our conversation and way of living here been limited to two negatives?

lw,
Your question brings up flaws in the plan.
When industrial land has been taken for condos and other infill, that we need to resort to taking habitat, I think we need to look at the whole picture here.
That includes what others have commented about, the super ships, railroad capacity etc.